The Trayvon Martin case -- anyone else following this?

[seanurban]

I click on this thread thinking there might be some news or actual insight and you know what I get every day? Galnter arguing the same point he's been arguing for 40 pages.

Yeah, I noticed that too. People want to talk about galanter. That's their choice.

[syntaxfree07]

I think it is pretty safe to make some inferences about Zimmerman's guilt based on his past actions and position as neighborhood watch captain.

A friend of a friend runs security over at a nuclear facility and he says that he gets Zimmerman types fresh out of academy trying to sign up all the time. The first questions that he asks are "Why do you want this job? Are you looking for excitement? Do you want to get bad guys?" It isn't going to be news to any of you, but the only time these guys even fire their weapons is to shoot the birds that get into the waste storage part of the facility. He says these guys are usually shocked that nothing "exciting" is happening and sometimes cool their jets about getting the job. Either way, they are never under any circumstances hired and it is the first and most important thing to consider when reviewing candidates.

[bigc]

I'm pretty amazed that someone who is saying 'Let's not rush to judgment and wait until all of the facts come out' is being so thoroughly crucified in this thread. Why not just break out the torches and pitchforks?

[fredrock]

There's not even proof (at least not yet) that Zimmerman was still following Martin at the time their confrontation started.

Yeah, there kind of is. Zimmerman's claim that he'd gotten out of his vehicle to check a street sign reeks of bullshit. If you look at the interactive street map you'll see that the gated community is not very big. That someone who lived there--let alone a member of the neighborhood patrol--wouldn't know what street he was on is highly implausible. Additionally, most people don't get out of their cars to check what street they're on, especially in the rain. Add to that everything that transpired before as well as the Martin's girlfriend's account and what other reasonable explanation is there?

I think the claim was he was checking the number not street name.

( IMHO though unless the prosecution can show Zimmerman struck the first blow I don't think the jury will say his aggression denies his right to a self- defense claim. It may not be a strict requirement but I think jurors will reach for a bright line, and throwing the first punch has that kind of appeal. Just speculation on my part.)

I've only read street sign, but either way his story makes no sense.


I'm not sure why you're choosing now to speculate so wildly. But if the law is a person can legally shoot another person for possibly punching first things are even more insane than I imagined.

911 dispatcher:

Alright, George, we do have them on the way. Do you want to meet with the officer when they get out there?

Zimmerman:

Yeah.

911 dispatcher:

Alright, where are you going to meet with them at?

Zimmerman:

Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then go past the mailboxes you’ll see my truck. [3:10]

911 dispatcher:

Alright, what address are you parked in front of? [3:21]

Zimmerman:

Um, I don’t know. It’s a cut-through so I don’t know the address. [3:25]

Why didn't you list the rest of the transcription...the part wherever Zimmy makes it clear he intends to continue stalking Martin? That would not fit into you defense of GZ.

========================================================

911 dispatcher:
OK, do you live in the area?

Zimmerman:
Yeah, yeah, I live here.

911 dispatcher:
OK, what’s your apartment number?

Zimmerman:
It’s a home. It’s XXX – oh, crap, I don’t want to give it out – I don’t know where this kid is [inaudible] [3:40]

911 dispatcher:
OK, do you just want to meet with them at the mailboxes then? [3:42]

Zimmerman:
Yeah, that’s fine. [3:43]

911 dispatcher:
Alright, George, I’ll let them know you’ll meet them at …

Zimmerman:
Could you have them call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at? [3:49]

911 dispatcher:
OK, that’s no problem.

Zimmerman:
My number … you’ve got it?

911 dispatcher:
Yeah, I’ve got it. XXX

Zimmerman:
Yeah, you got it.

911 dispatcher:
OK, no problem. I’ll let them know to call you when they’re in the area. [4:02]

Zimmerman:
Thanks.

911 dispatcher:
You’re welcome.

Call ends 4:07


=====

Cynics might call it demonstrative of confirmation bias.

[Clyde]

You think predicting that a 6'3" football player could take a 5'9" shlub in a fight makes no sense?

GZ outweighed TM by about 100 pounds. So, yes, I do think a 5'9" shlub could prevail.

I have no idea who was on top at the time of the shooting, it seems plausible that either guy could've been on top of the other at the time of the shooting. It also seems quite plausible that that neither had an established position on top, but rather they were rolling around, scuffling.

Not that it necessarily clarifies anything but the heights and weights of both Zimmerman and Martin seem to be in dispute. For the record, the police report listed Martin at 6'0" and 160, but I've read his height as being as tall as 6'3" and his weight as low as 140. Zimmerman's height has been listed between 5'8"-5'9" and his current weight has been listed between 185-190. I assume the higher weight is based on his previous arrest.

I do find referring to one guy as a "schlub" and the other as a "football player" to be an example of the exact type of bias galanter claims he doesn't have.

[Ranxerox]

Galanter's position does not indicate a sicko or a jerk, etc. I don't have any real problem with his studied, ascetic neutrality and the constant vigilance he has for considering alternate possibilities.

We are not a mob. Our varied takes on the maddening details of this case are not an indication that we want blood at the expense of the right operations of our legal system and the primacy of good logic.

There is a profound value in noting where one's emotions or 'common sense' is treading beyond its means. We all agree. We all agree that he is innocent until proven guilty and that there should be no witch hunt.

I think that many of us have just moved on from those basic points because an unarmed kid was shot by an adult who seems to have pursued after being told not to and that, on its face, sounds indefensible, especially as it appears that the altercation was wholly unnecessary (regardless of Zimmerman's legal right to be here or there). I think Galanter wants to remain neutral and we want to say 'this whole thing stinks -- the police stunk, Zimmerman's toting a gun stinks, his pursuing the kid stinks, the stand your ground law stinks, the obsession some have with an interpretation of individual liberty that MUST include insane latitude for handguns stinks, racial profiling stinks, etc.'
Galanter and the rest of us are not talking about the same things. He wants to protect neutrality and we, as non-decision makers looking on from the ether of the peanut gallery, want to engage the facts we have and our outrage over various things.

My only suggestion: Galanter, stop trying to move us to your version of pained neutrality. We are all going to wait for the outcome and none of us have any say. We get your position and your method. We get that, because we are not decision makers and lack omniscience, your approach cannot, as a matter of principle, leave neutrality and a suspended judgment. Fine. Bravo. Stop correcting us and trying to show us how reality might look like something that favors the claims of the armed adult who shot the unarmed adolescent. For the love of christ, stop. We are not talking about the same things, so you are just harassing the dialogue needlessly.

[Ptommydski]

No offence to anybody but there are other users on the forum who are following this discussion with interest. There are innumerable news outlets which are extensively covering the story on a daily basis. I'd argue that since people are continuing to respond to Galanter (who is still not being abusive in the face of considerable provocation), he's entitled to defend himself. I'd suggest that people who are not interested have the option of either avoiding the thread, posting their own separate discussion within the thread or blocking users participating in the unwanted debate.

I disagree with Galanter on this occasion but it's an interesting exchange of ideas regardless. He's being amiable and non-confrontational despite being on the wrong end of some verbal abuse for a couple of weeks now. I think he's entitled to have his say, even if I don't agree with him.

[Ranxerox]

I do find referring to one guy as a "schlub" and the other as a "football player" to be an example of the exact type of bias galanter claims he doesn't have.

Yes.

[fredrock]

And now , a bit of levity I hope!!!

I like my "likely's", more than your "likely's".
Is that so unlikely?

[Yngwie Einstein]

galanter is truly, a disgusting human.

I disagree. His initial post pointed out that the south isn't the only bastion of racism and he is right. He also has correctly pointed out a lot of confirmation bias in much of the discussion of known and unknown evidence.

Where I've found disagreement is in the way he's weighted the evidence. I think Galanter has accepted GZ's story as fact and not applied the same sort of skepticism to it that he has to those who feel GZ is guilty of a crime. This is what I find troubling. And when presented with this, Galanter doubles down on his argument rather than re-examine from the neutral perspective he claims to embrace.

A lot of us have a problem admitting when we are wrong.

This case has been a mess from the get go and has only been complicated by the racial under- and overtones. At the end of the day, when you strip away the races of the two people involved, it still winds up being a fucked up situation in which an innocent, unarmed kid was killed and a retarded state law has given the defense a position to argue from, rather than a jail cell.

Galanter may ultimately be vindicated because the SYG law is that fucked up. But I don't believe the facts as we know them to date support his argument.

[galanter]

This is why it's better to aggressively suspend judgement but to just as aggressively gather evidence.

And why it's better to aggressively defend the shooter in the interim, right?

Just to make sure I understand your reasoning here.

It's hard to not assume bad faith in a comment like this.

There is a dispute. Some support A. Some support not-A. Some support answer not yet known. In a particular discussion almost everyone is arguing A. Those who support unknown will then argue the case for A is insufficient in part by presenting contradicting arguments, i.e. arguments for not-A.

Is this really so hard to understand?

[scntfc]

I'm pretty amazed that someone who is saying 'Let's not rush to judgment and wait until all of the facts come out' is being so thoroughly crucified in this thread. Why not just break out the torches and pitchforks?

yeah, but the problem is he is saying 'Let's not rush to judgment and wait until all of the facts come out' out of one side of his mouth, and then trotting out specious arguments and conjecture with the other (and putting down others for doing the same). ffs a couple pages back he was discussing who would take who in a fight, zimmerman or martin. f. f. s.

just because you are being civil and not calling people names doesn't mean you aren't being a total fucking dick.

[EmpireStateTroopers]

Galanter, you are arguing that the defense has a case. The rest of us are expressing outrage over what we believe happened in all likelihood. This is why we're going in circles. We are not the court of law so stop telling us not to speculate. This is an internet forum, and human emotion is totally welcome.

What do you believe happened, in your HEART?

[galanter]

I do find referring to one guy as a "schlub" and the other as a "football player" to be an example of the exact type of bias galanter claims he doesn't have.

Yes.

This was short hand closely following up on a post where I more carefully described the known facts regarding the relative health and viability in a fight of Martin versus Zimmerman. It was in response to speculation that Martin would be at a disadvantage in a fist fight. I wasn't asserting Martin had an advantage in a fight so much as disagreeing that it was clear that Zimmerman did.

[placeholder]

This is why it's better to aggressively suspend judgement but to just as aggressively gather evidence.

And why it's better to aggressively defend the shooter in the interim, right?

Just to make sure I understand your reasoning here.

It's hard to not assume bad faith in a comment like this.

There is a dispute. Some support A. Some support not-A. Some support answer not yet known. In a particular discussion almost everyone is arguing A. Those who support unknown will then argue the case for A is insufficient in part by presenting contradicting arguments, i.e. arguments for not-A.

Is this really so hard to understand?

This isn't hard to understand at all. It just isn't what you seem to be doing.

Forum member Yngwie Einstein has elucidated this better than I can, so I'll defer to him.

I think Galanter has accepted GZ's story as fact and not applied the same sort of skepticism to it that he has to those who feel GZ is guilty of a crime. This is what I find troubling. And when presented with this, Galanter doubles down on his argument rather than re-examine from the neutral perspective he claims to embrace.

And with that, I'll stop addressing you.

[matte]

...it's not at all unlikely that in a straight up fist fight that Martin would have dominated.

I wasn't asserting Martin had an advantage in a fight so much as disagreeing that it was clear that Zimmerman did.

[galanter]

Galanter, you are arguing that the defense has a case. The rest of us are expressing outrage over what we believe happened in all likelihood. This is why we're going in circles. We are not the court of law so stop telling us not to speculate. This is an internet forum, and human emotion is totally welcome.

What do you believe happened, in your HEART?

I have no idea. Zimmerman may or may not have had a racist impulse involved in his decision making. Martin may or may not have sucker punched Zimmerman and bashed his head without legally allowable cause. Zimmerman may or may not have had a reasonable fear for his life and an ongoing right to self-defense.

Heartfelt speculation has a place, but in this case it's doing more harm than good.

This case does prove that a troubling racial divide continues in this country in the following sense: the black and the non-black population look at the same facts and come to dramatically different conclusions. Without knowing why it happens or who is "right," the mere fact that it happens at all is proof of a divide that requires attention.

[EmpireStateTroopers]

damn, I thought that would fry your circuits. wasn't that a star trek episode?

[Clyde]

I do find referring to one guy as a "schlub" and the other as a "football player" to be an example of the exact type of bias galanter claims he doesn't have.

Yes.

This was short hand closely following up on a post where I more carefully described the known facts regarding the relative health and viability in a fight of Martin versus Zimmerman. It was in response to speculation that Martin would be at a disadvantage in a fist fight. I wasn't asserting Martin had an advantage in a fight so much as disagreeing that it was clear that Zimmerman did.

I assume you mean this

Martin was a physically mature 6'3" and had played football since grade school. Zimmerman is 5'9" and is said to be in average condition at best. This doesn't really prove anything, but it's not at all unlikely that in a straight up fist fight that Martin would have dominated.

Do you honestly think this is a good example of presenting known facts in an unbiased manner?

This is my problem with your posts in a nutshell. Part of it seems reasonable. There is no way to know who might win that fist fight, and people shouldn't assume Zimmerman was on top. You are correct to challenge that point. But then you go further, advancing Zimmerman's narrative. That's not presenting the known facts. To say you weren't insinuating that Martin had an advantage is disingenuous.

[Ranxerox]

I do find referring to one guy as a "schlub" and the other as a "football player" to be an example of the exact type of bias galanter claims he doesn't have.

Yes.

This was short hand closely following up on a post where I more carefully described the known facts regarding the relative health and viability in a fight of Martin versus Zimmerman. It was in response to speculation that Martin would be at a disadvantage in a fist fight. I wasn't asserting Martin had an advantage in a fight so much as disagreeing that it was clear that Zimmerman did.

I don't argue against that explanation. It's just that bias creeps into our language so easily, even yours, especially when you are trying to parse everything as though we were in the midst of some great forensic endeavor. We are not. Ease down.

Again, constantly trying to correct what amounts to our feelings and outrage is a drag and serves no purpose as the position you wish to protect most is not really under attack here. Some may be quick to believe race was the impetus behind he shooting, some may feel race was behind the police department's lazy initial swipes at investigating the situation. Etc. No need to try to police our responses or our logic. We really do get your point and I don't think anyone disagrees with the idea of a fair trial. All you end up doing is antagonizing because 1) there cannot be enough facts at present for you to feel that neutrality needn't be protected and 2) that means you are purposefully holding yourself in abeyance in re the overall fucked-ness of the situation, which is really what most of us are howling about.